|
Nnanji -> RE: White Cop Refused to Shoot Armed Black Man (5/12/2017 9:05:27 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
If this person was shot in the back of the head, then it follows that the police officer who shot him was either behind or to the side of the victim. It is also the case that there were 3 police officers in attendance. So the victim presumably had cops in front of him and to his side. Fox also report the sacked police officer as stating that the victim "had the gun at his side and was not pointing it at the officer". There is no report of any attempt to talk the victim 'down' other than the attempt of the police officer who was subsequently sacked. Despite the police's numerical superiority and having the victim surrounded, or near surrounded, thereby having situational dominance, the police still opted to shoot.
These facts suggest that no serious attempt at de-escalating the situation was attempted, that a total of 3 police officers were unable to control the situation without recourse to violence even though there does not appear to be any immediate threat to life (the gun was by the victim's side, not pointing at any one). This suggests the police are hampered by serious lack of training in de-escalating dangerous situations. These reports also suggest that the 2 additional police's attending the situation opted to shoot as their first and only option.
Somehow it is not a surprise to hear that the victim was black, that he had mental health issues, that the gun was not loaded and that the victim might have been seeking suicide by cop. It appears that in this instance, the police were only too willing to oblige him.
These facts? These made up assertions that allow you to claim facts that aren't existent in the article. Typical for you to make up facts and then ramble on about what they mean...which has no more validity than your "facts".
|
|
|
|
